IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850 & 1851/Hyd./2019 Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2007-2008 Sri G. Rajender Reddy, The ACIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad – 500 035 vs. HYDERABAD – 500 004.

PAN AHGPG2242M Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao For Revenue : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :

The above batch of 6 appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders all dated 24.09.2019 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, relating to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2007-08. Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we take-up appeal of the Assessee ITA.No.1848/Hyd./2019 for the assessment year 2007-2008 as “lead” appeal, in which, the assessee has raised the following grounds :

1. “The order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO is not only erroneous both on facts and in law but is without application of mind as none of the submissions that are made are considered and dealt with.

2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was nothing in the seized material of the AO has brought on record any evidence in the form of purchase deed or sale deed to demonstrate that the assessee is engaged in land purchase and sale to hold that the receipts recorded in the seized material A/SBS/BUS/14 relate to such income and has not conducted any enquiry whatsoever from the date of search to the date of competition of assessment in spite of there being references of mobile numbers in the seized material and thereby erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,44,22,300 without considering the submissions.

3. The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that it is settled law that every receipt cannot be revenue receipt or that it is income and further erred in not considering the submissions about the discrepancy by the AO in considering the amount as against the claim of the assessee that the receipts are considered in the hands of the firm and amount is also not correctly arrived at.

4. The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that not only there should be a source for income but also there should be evidence as to where the same is appearing as investment or otherwise to determine the undisclosed income and in the absence of books of account as per CBDT's circular "Net worth basis should be followed to determine the undisclosed income and thereby erred in rejecting such plea by the assessee on the ground that there are no assets whatsoever to hold that the assessee earned any undisclosed income.

5. The learned CIT(A) though states that the AO has discussed the reasons elaborately in the assessment order failed to deal with the submissions of the assessee both at the time of assessment and in appeal and erred in not discussing about it except reproducing them and not passing a reasoned order as to why such submissions are not tenable.

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the amount paid for admission to Engineering College of Rs.5,00,000 as unexplained without considering the submissions.

7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.45,00,000 as Commission income without considering the submissions that are made merely based on AO's version and without dealing with the submissions as to why the same is not correct and without any evidence except statement at the time of search and without enquiry with the land owner (Tax effect -

Rs.1,62,27,691).

8. For these and other grounds that may be urged, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleas